In re Trevon M. CA5
Filed 12/4/13 In re Trevon M. CA5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
In re TREVON M., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
THE PEOPLE, F066539
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. JL003509)
v. OPINION TREVON M.,
Defendant and Appellant.
THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Merced County. David W. Moranda, Judge.
Arthur L. Bowie, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Kathleen A. McKenna and Sarah J. Jacobs, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-
*Before Levy, Acting P.J., Detjen, J. and Peña, J.
INTRODUCTION On appeal following adjudication of a Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, subdivision (a) petition, Trevon M. contends there is insufficient credible evidence to sustain the juvenile court’s finding that he committed residential burglary. We will affirm. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In a petition filed November 28, 2012, the Merced County District Attorney alleged Trevon committed the following violations: count 1—first degree burglary (Pen. Code,1 § 459); count 2—receiving stolen property (§ 496, subd. (a)); and count 3— violating a prior court order, juvenile probation (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 777, subd. (a)).2 Trevon denied the allegations. Following contested proceedings held December 20 and 21, 2012, the juvenile court found counts 1, 2, and 3 as alleged in the petition to be true beyond a reasonable doubt. At disposition on January 8, 2013, the court ordered, inter alia, that Trevon be committed to Bear Creek Academy’s long-term program for a period not to exceed one year. This appeal followed. FACTUAL BACKGROUND On November 26, 2012, Juan Penate left his home in Merced to run errands. He ensured all doors and windows were closed and locked before he left that morning as he had been the victim of a burglary just a month or so prior. Forty-five minutes to an hour later, he returned. Penate entered through the front door and then heard a “noise and stumbling.” As he was walking toward the kitchen, two or three individuals jumped out
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)